Same-Sex “Marriage” Bill Referred to Judiciary Committee
March 20th, 2007 by Peter
A bill fabricating same-sex “marriage” in Connecticut was referred to the Joint Committee on the Judiciary today. You can read H.B. 7395, “An Act Concerning Marriage Equality,” by clicking here.
H.B. 7395 would not give same-sex couples a single new “right” they do not already have under the civil union law; its only purpose is to redefine society’s definition of marriage. H.B. 7395 describes “marriage” as “the legal union of two persons” and says that a person is eligible to marry if he or she is “of the same or opposite sex” as the other party. It removes the words “bride and groom” from the current statute and replaces it with “both persons.” It even removes other gender-specific language, such as replacing “no man may marry his mother” etc. with “no person may marry such person’s parent” etc. It removes the statutory language declaring Connecticut’s public policy to be that marriage is between a man and a woman. And it removes the language defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman–language Gov. Rell insisted on as a condition of her signing civil unions into law.
Watch for more information on what you can do to stop our opponents’ efforts to erode society’s shared understanding of what marriage is.
Notice the exception for religious objections. This makes it easier for proponents to say, “What do you care? We’re not making you marry them!”
Ya, but does it add 2 women and 1 man as a marriage? I guess we have to wait another year for that one.
If we are to expand the definition of marriage beyond one man and one woman, removing the possibility of forming a family naturally between the two loving partners, we open the doors to other basis of so-called marriage. This is not to say that marriage is exclusively reserved for a man and women who are able to pro-create, for those that are married who are unable to have children for just reason, still follow the model that is long established that does normally have that capability. That model is worth preserving for what it is because other models of union can never be equal. In the case of this argument, same sex couples can never naturally fit the same current model of traditional marriage.
Some unions which would share more in common with heterosexual marriage than same sex marriage would be heterosexual marriages between siblings, or parents and their children because of their ability to bring forth children. But those unions are not allowable by law at this time. I understand this due to potential genetic problems as well as religious and societal barriers. But if we remove the natural procreative sexual component as a criteria for marriage in its redefinition, then marriage between family members should logically be allowed, since there is no expectation that a married couple should attempt to procreate and we would be removing religious and societal barriers if this bill was passed. Far fetched? Logically speaking, no. And on this basis I do not understand why language exists in the bill to prohibit members of a same family to marry at all? If same sex couples cannot naturally procreate, then why ban same sex couples within the same family also (and create another minority class)? As long as the members of the union love each other, desire to commit to one another, etc, etc, etc, all the reasons same sex couples demanding the redefinition of marriage currently desire to be “married”, and avoid consummating the marriage in a potentially procreative marital embrace, by choice or by mutually incompatibility, should they be denied marriage?